Hill Heat

At today’s markup of Lieberman Warner (S 2191), changes were made to win the support of Sen. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), ensuring passage by a 4-3 vote (Sanders, Isakson, and Barrasso voting no) to send the bill to the full Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The changes, according to CQ:

• Extending the scope of the bill to cover all emissions from the use of natural gas. The introduced bill covered natural gas burned in power plants and industrial processes but not in commercial and residential buildings.
• Requiring the EPA to make recommendations to Congress based on periodic reports from the National Academy of Sciences. The bill already would direct the academy to evaluate whether changes in the law are necessary, based on the state of the environment and available technology.

These were two of the four specific changes called for by NRDC at the initial hearing on the bill.

Amendments were introduced by Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Barrasso (R-Wyo.). Changes made by amendments adopted at the markup:

• Advanced tech auto funding limited to vehicles with minimum of 35 mpg (Sanders 3)
• More allocations given to states, taken from international forest protection (Barrasso 4)
• Definition of lower-rank coal eligible for 25% of CCS funding changed from “for example, bituminous and lignite” to coal with a heat content below 10000 BTU/lb (Barrasso 3)

Sen. Isakson reiterated his passion for nuclear power, and Barrasso argued for stronger coal subsidies, a sentiment supported by Sen. Baucus. Lautenberg compared their role to that of doctors faced with a sick patient who could become terminal, asking why anyone would withhold the necessary medicine. The Senators often laughed about their needs to compromise and balance each others’ parochial interests.

VOINOVICH Speaking at the National Press Club on Friday, Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), a member of the Committee on Envrionment and Public Works, criticized the “overly aggressive first phase of emission reductions” in the draft Lieberman-Warner legislation, which calls for the Sanders-Boxer target of reduction to 1990 levels of emissions (15% reduction from 2005 levels) by 2015.

According to CQ (subscriber only):

Voinovich said that legislation should include financial incentives for technological development and deployment, such as loan guarantees, government procurement programs and international technology transfer promotion.

“Let’s do a Manhattan project,” Voinovich said. “Let’s do an Apollo project.”

Without new technologies, he warned, coal-fired power plants would simply switch over to using natural gas

ISAKSON Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) will introduce a “nuclear title” amendment at the subcommittee markup tomorrow for more nuclear power plant incentives. At last week’s hearing, Isakson said it was “just crazy” to not support nuclear power. Update: Isakson may miss the markup to attend a White House meeting on the Georgia drought. David Roberts notes the irony that means Isakson won’t be able to support subsidies for the most water-intensive source of electricity.

ALEXANDER Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) sits on the EPW committee. He believes the cap-and-trade system should not apply to the transportation sector through the “upstream” cap on refiners and fuel importers, instead only applying a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) such as that in S. 1324 and HR 2215.

According to CQ, Alexander will amend Alexander-Lieberman (S 1168), a power-sector cap-and-trade bill, to include transportation and building efficiency standards.

INHOFE Inhofe, EPW’s ranking member, continues to challenge the science of climate change.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is on Daily Kos asking for questions for tomorrow’s Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming hearing, Wildfires and the Climate Crisis.

In an effort to expand the dialogue around this issue, I am seeking ideas, thoughts and questions prior to the hearing. Please have a look at the hearing information below and then post your thoughts in the comment section of this blog. Time for Q&A is limited during Congressional hearings, but I ]will read all posts beforehand in an effort to inject your ideas into this important debate.

Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth:

The Lieberman-Warner bill will reward corporate polluters by handing them pollution permits worth almost half a trillion dollars. And that’s just one part of this bill. The bill also includes hundreds of billions of dollars of other mind-boggling giveaways. The levels of pollution-rewarding giveaways in this bill are truly obscene.

In calculating the value of emissions allowances, FoE follows the estimates of EPA’s analysis of McCain-Lieberman (Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, S. 280) which estimated that between 2015 and 2050, the price of emissions permits would increase from an average of $14 to $78 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas emissions.

Friends of the Earth’s analysis found that the bill:

• Provides the coal industry and other fossil fuel industries pollution permits worth $436 billion over the life of the legislation; 58 percent of this amount goes to coal (sec. 3901)
• Returns revenue raised through auctions directly to polluters—for example, an additional $324 billion would subsidize the coal industry’s efforts to develop carbon capture and storage mechanisms (sec. 3601)
• Directs another $522 billion of auction revenue to low or zero-emissions technologies, which could result in handouts to the nuclear power, big hydro and coal industries, which are not clean (these funds could also be directed toward important clean technologies, such as wind and solar—the legislation is not specific) (sec. 4401)

On Thursday, the Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, chaired by Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), will markup S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade climate legislation.

The LA Times calls for Congress to implement “simple carbon taxes that would assess polluters for the cost of their environmental damage and offset the resulting economic pain by lowering other taxes”, and failing that, 100% auction. The Roanoke Times supports L-W but calls for a tighter cap, citing UCS. The Center for American Progress, in an article primarily about the California wildfires, calls for these changes to L-W:

• Mandating that new coal fired power plants reduce their pollution by 85 percent using carbon and capture storage technology.
• Providing significantly more resources to protect people in Africa and Asia at risk from global warming impacts.
• Requiring all emitters to purchase allowances that allow them to emit greenhouse gases.

The Great Falls Tribune takes a look at the Montanan perspective, noting Baucus’s scripturally based support for the bill, the no-till agricultural offsets, allowances for rural electric cooperatives, CCS incentives, and the weak cap targets. The Helena Independent Record has more of Baucus’s perspective.

MarketWatch notes that hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake, noting that environmentalists are calling for 100% auction and that US-CAP has avoided a stance, and links to the CBO report from this spring, Trade-Offs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions.

The Politico takes a look at the lobbying on L-W. Note to the Politico: “allocate” is not “legislative slang for ‘give away’”—auctions and free distribution are the alternative methods of allocation.

Last week the Union of Concerned Scientists released a new version of “Cashing In on Clean Energy”, judging the economic and environmental effects of a 15% renewable electricity standard (RES) by 2020 (aka renewable portfolio standard (RPS)), the standard called for in HR 3221, the House energy bill. [The Senate version did not include the Bingaman amendment of the same standard, and the provision is at the negotiating table; the initial UCS study looked at a 20% by 2020 standard; the 1Sky/Step It Up campaign calls for 20% by 2015.]

Using an Energy Information Administration (EIA) model, The UCS found the following:

• Consumer savings would equal $13 billion to $18.1 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2020 (growing to $27.7 billion to $31.8 billion by 2030 if the standard does not increase)
• Clean, renewable energy capacity would increase between 3.6 and 4.5 times over 2005 levels
• Reductions in global warming pollution equal to taking between 13.7 and 20.6 million cars off the road

The ranges are generated for lower and higher RES scenarios, depending on implementation choices:

Under our “lower renewable energy case”: (1) all states opt into a provision that allows electric service providers to use energy efficiency to meet up to 27 percent of their annual targets, and (2) additional renewable energy generation from electric power providers having to meet higher targets under state standards is eligible. Under the “higher renewable energy case”: (1) states with renewable standards that are higher than the federal targets (there are 18) do not opt into the energy efficiency provision, and (2) additional renewable energy generation used to meet state standards is retired and not eligible for use under the national standard.

In a story reported by Associated Press (see Washington Post, ED, WattHead, CQ), Barbara Boxer revealed that CDC director Julie Gerberding’s written testimony (uncensored version) at Tuesday’s EPW hearing on global warming impacts on health was dramatically cut by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget after questions were raised by John H. Marburger III, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Six of the deleted pages detailed how global warming might affect Americans and they included a section with the title, “Climate Change is a Public Concern.”

On Wednesday, House Science Committee Chairman Bart Gordon and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Brad Miller sent a letter to Marburger formally requesting all documents related to the matter by next Monday:

We expect our government researchers and scientists to provide to both Congress and the public the full results of their taxpayer-supported work without the filter that those of opposing views might like to impose. Otherwise, we cannot have a full and free scientific debate.

Marburger released a statement today (from Andy Revkin’s NYT Dot Earth blog), claiming:

Those commentators have missed or ignored several nuanced but important differences between the I.P.C.C. report’s findings and the draft testimony.

Barbara Boxer responsed:

Dr. Marburger’s statement is a lame defense of the White House action to censor information the American people deserve to know about the dangers of global warming.

DeSmogBlog shows what was cut from the report, saying:

These were not minor edits the White House PR spin machine would like us to believe. The word-count for the CDC Director’s Senate testimony went from 3,107 to 1,500 after the White House got through with it.

Whole sections on health related effects to extreme weather, air pollution-related health effect, allergic diseases, water and food-borne infectious diseases, food and water scarcity and the long term impacts of chronic diseases and other health effects were completely wiped out of the testimony.

Last week, Markey sent this dear colleague letter (forwarded to Hill Heat) on the connection between wildfires and global warming, the subject of a Global Warming Committee hearing next week:

Record-Breaking Forest Fires in Western United State Increasingly Fueled By Global Warming

October 19, 2007

Dear Colleague,

Evidence shows that as a result of global warming, forest fires in our western states are burning more frequently and with greater intensity than we have ever seen before. Last year was the worst fire season in recorded history and this season is already second, with eight million acres burned.

What has brought this change about? A study published in the journal Science in 2006 revealed the frightening conclusion that global warming is contributing to the increased loss of our forests to fire. This publication revealed the impact of global warming, even while controlling for land use and management practices which also effect forest fires.

According to the Science paper, “Wildfires have consumed increasing areas of western United States forests in recent years, and fire-fighting expenditures by federal land-management agencies now regularly exceed US$1 billion/year. Hundreds of homes are burned annually by wildfires, and damages to natural resources are sometimes extreme and irreversible.” [1]

Global Warming’s impact on fires in the West and the threat that an increasing number of wild fires pose will be featured on 60 Minutes this Sunday, Oct. 21, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. 60 Minutes will speak with author Tom Swetnam, an author on the 2006 Science paper, on the role global warming has played on the frequency and intensity of these mega-fires. I encourage you watch this program to learn more about this important issue.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Markey

Member of Congress

[1] C. Whitlock, Nature 432, 28 (2004).

As discussed by Sean Siperstein at Warming Law, Washington governor Christine Gregoire announced last week that her state would join California when it files suit against the EPA for delay on the waiver petition to allow California and 11 other states to regulate CO2 emissions from automobiles (“clean car” regulations). This week the New York Times reported that New York and the other states intend to join the lawsuit as well.

California intended to file suit against the EPA on Monday, 181 days after its request for action following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA:

We provided 180-day notice on April 26, 2007, of our intent to sue under the Clean Air Act and Administrative Procedure Act, which provide mechanisms for compelling delayed agency action. However, we had frankly held out hope that this dispute would be resolved without the time and expense of a lengthy court battle. Given your comments in front of the Special Committee and the work of the U.S. Department of Transportation, a lawsuit on the 181st day now appears to be inevitable.

The filing of the lawsuit has been delayed by the raging wildfires in California.

As Lieberman-Warner has its first hearing, Sierra Club, Audobon, Physicians for Social Responsibility, U.S. PIRG released these seven principles for climate change legislation:

• Reform energy policy: New national energy policies should encourage efficiency, innovation, competition, and fairness. We need more aggressive energy efficiency policies for electricity and buildings, increased CAFE standards like those passed by the Senate, and the renewable electricity standard included in the House energy bill.
• Promote a clean energy future: Invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy to create new industries and good jobs here at home.
• Cap and cut carbon emissions to science-based levels: Science tells us in order to prevent the worst impacts of global warming we must start cutting global warming pollution by 2012, with reductions in total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of at least 15 to 20 percent below current levels by 2020 and 80 percent by mid-century.
• Use all public assets for public benefit: The value of carbon permits should benefit the public – through auctions or other mechanisms – not generate windfalls for polluting industries. Free allocations, if any, must be limited to a short transition period.
• Ensure a just transition: Allowances should be used to help finance a just transition that keeps and creates jobs, reduces impacts on low-and moderate-income citizens, and mitigates harm to affected workers and communities.
• Provide aid to adapt to an altered climate: Allowances should be used to help distressed and impoverished people around the world, as well as wildlife and ecosystems in the face of global warming’s varied threats.
• Manage costs without breaking the cap. “Safety valves” and other devices that break the cap on emissions must not be allowed. Any offsets must be real, surplus, verifiable, permanent, and enforceable.